iOS Apple reviewer won't let app which shows an ad to my own unrelated content

[maka]

I'm having problems getting an update to my app approved because the reviewer is citing 3.1.1 In app purchases when my app displays an ad to a couple of music records I host on Distrokid.

3.1.1 refers to unlocking app functionality outside of Apple, but in this case the app is free and there's nothing to unlock... the ad is just like any other ad to unrelated stuff. Unfortunately the reviewer won't budge. I filed an appeal and will see where this goes...

3.1.1 In-App Purchase:
If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.

Any thoughts? This is an extract of the conversation:

"Guideline 3.1.1 - Business - Payments - In-App Purchase
We noticed that your app or its metadata provides access to external purchase mechanisms for digital content or subscriptions."

"So, I can’t place an ad to my own music? Because the app is free and the link doesn’t unlock any functionality. It’s just an ad"

"Guideline 3.1.1 - Business - Payments - In-App Purchase
We continue to find that your app contains a strong call to action. We’ve attached screenshots for you to reference."

"Hello. Can you tell me what guideline I’m violating? My app displays an ad for my music. The app is free. Clicking on the ad doesn’t unlock any content on the app. Clicking on the ad just shows a list of links where someone can listen to my music including links to Apple Music and iTunes where Apple would earn profit if anyone decides to buy the records. But it’s an ad. It’s not an in app purchase because there’s nothing to unlock in the app. The app is totally and completely FREE.

I’m just promoting a couple of records I’ve released because my app has been downloaded so many times that it serves as a showcase.

What difference does it make to you if an ad is for some other product from anyone else or if it’s mine?"

"Hello,

Thank you for your reply.

We understand that you may not agree with the feedback we have provided. However, to ensure App Store customers a safe and enjoyable experience, all apps must comply with the App Store Review Guidelines. We hope that you will make the appropriate changes to your app to bring it into compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines and resubmit your app for review."

 

[BrianBaughn]

Hopefully someone can recommend an alternate method, that will pass scrutiny, to achieve the same result.

 

[casperes1996]

I think the problem may just be in how the ad is presented. Maybe if you could show a screenshot or something, but if the ad is presented in a way that doesn't make it obvious to the user that it's an ad for a completely independent thing and not something you can buy related to the app, it is a clear violation of that rule. Put a little note at the corner that says "Ad" and don't say things like "Buy Now!" in the ad, but instead "Check out" or whatever, then I would assume it would go through.

 

[maka]

This is how the banner looks. It doesn't say "Ad", but it's clear it's not something that will unlock anything in the app... It links to a Distrokid page that has a preview of the album and links to the album on Youtube, Spotify, Apple Music and iTunes...

By the way, the appeal was finally resolved and they still reject the app. Here's the transcript:

Hello Jorge,

We are writing to let you know the appeal results for your app, Home Photo Widget.

The App Review Board evaluated your app and determined that the original rejection feedback is valid.

We continue to find that your app contains a call to action, as well as indirect access for users to purchase digital subscriptions for third-party services available on iOS. This is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guideline 3.1.1.

To resolve this issue, please revise your app to remove any access to third-party digital subscription purchases from your app. We can allow for this issue to be addressed with the submission of your next update. In the meantime we will continue with the review of version 2.0.1 of your app.

We encourage you to review the previous rejection correspondence for this app, make the necessary changes to bring it into compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines, and resubmit it for review.

Best regards

And my answer:

I don’t agree. So let me ask. Facebook app has ads. When you click on these adds you get pages with all kinds of buy links. To subscriptions. To physical products. To games not available on the App Store. Etc...

3.1.1 only says you can’t unlock features on the app by an outside link. If you applied your reasoning any app that shows an ad would be rejected.

Explain to me why I can’t advertise my own product which has nothing to do with the app?

By the way: as a small developer and a really small musician (have made no money and still pay you 100€ a month) your support is really appreciated. (It’s ironic just in case)

I've read 3.1.1 and I can't see where it says that you can't link to unrealated content:

If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.

I know I can just remove this and update the app, it's not like this ad is giving me thousands of views on the 2 albums or any income, but it just seems so unfair in their part, and I don't know what else to do... It's so bad how they pick on small developers... I've supported Apple since the 90's and love how they've developed a great ecosystem for small devs but lately the app review process is worse and worse...

 

[maka]

Maybe they'll accept it if I just link to Apple Music and iTunes... hehe

 

[Red Menace]

If I am understanding the issue correctly, the difference is that Facebook is delivering third party advertisements, while your app is essentially advertising your store. Apple does not want their store used in that way (see Epic, et al.), so you should be OK after removing that part.

 

[maka]

If I am understanding the issue correctly, the difference is that Facebook is delivering third party advertisements, while your app is essentially advertising your store. Apple does not want their store used in that way (see Epic, et al.), so you should be OK after removing that part.

Yeah, I understand. What I don’t see in the 3.1.1 rule is where it says you can’t link to a page that sells something unrelated to any unlocks for the app. If they meant that then it’s definitely not written in the guideline.

By the way, it is ok for me to earn money through selling ads for others while linking to their products but it’s not ok for me to advertise my own product for free... that doesn’t sound right.

The app got through, as the last reviewer says but next update I have to change it. Maybe I link only to Apple Music and see if they reject it too

By the way, the comparison to Epic is unfortunate because Epic was linking to a site where you could pay for in game unlocks. Which as per the 3.1.1 guideline should be in app purchases. Apple review is telling me to use IAP which is ridiculous as I’m not selling any unlocks for the app.

So this basically comes down to: is it legitimate and fair for apple to ban ads to your own unrelated products using 3.1.1? I don’t think so.

 

[Red Menace]

I don't think it has anything to do with unlocking per se, just the bit about "Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase". This is one of the big issues in the current Epic Games kerfuffle - they have their own store and are free to use it, they just can't use Apple's store to advertise it. You would probably be OK linking to your entries in the Apple Music store.

 

[Phil A.]

I suspect it's the "support me by checking my music out" line that they're interpreting as a call to action: If it was labelled as an advert and you showed other adverts alongside your own then it would possibly be OK

 

[maka]

I don't think it has anything to do with unlocking per se, just the bit about "Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase". This is one of the big issues in the current Epic Games kerfuffle - they have their own store and are free to use it, they just can't use Apple's store to advertise it. You would probably be OK linking to your entries in the Apple Music store.

Still. If an app has an outside purchasing mechanism it not only cannot link to any outside page, it can’t have a hint of this possible purchase even existing. I’ve made apps for the company where I work where the client doesn’t want to use IAP for their services and they want the app to work only with customers who pay on the web. Think of an app like Kindle on iOS.

What Epic did was a blatant violation of the guideline and I agree about Apple’s actions because it’s about a “free” app that makes millions.

In this case the app is really free. But I still pay apple yearly. And the link is not even a “store”. It’s a collection of links to different music services where people can listen to a record in the service of their choosing which they are most likely already paying. To imply anyone would start a Spotify subscription because of my link is ludicrous. And well... we all know all these services pay almost nothing anyway...

 

[maka]

I suspect it's the "support me by checking my music out" line that they're interpreting as a call to action: If it was labelled as an advert and you showed other adverts alongside your own then it would possibly be OK

I asked them if there is any way to change the text or any other option that would in their view make it ok. I’m still waiting for the answer... I guess I’ll have it on the next update...

 

[Red Menace]

Apple is most likely just a bit more sensitive about this kind of thing since Epic and others have been pulling their ****, so pretty much anyone trying to divert business outside the app is going to catch their attention. Better to use a web app for those kinds of things anyway.

 

[maka]

Apple is most likely just a bit more sensitive about this kind of thing since Epic and others have been pulling their ****, so pretty much anyone trying to divert business outside the app is going to catch their attention. Better to use a web app for those kinds of things anyway.

Unfortunately a web app won’t let you place whatever photo you want as a widget on your Home Screen, something that Apple themselves should have supported with their Photos widget... anyway... It’s not “Apple”. It’s some of its employees and lately I’ve seen a worsening of the review process. In another thread I commented how I had to explain to a reviewer how to edit a widget because he rejected the app on the basis that it didn’t work.... and there’s more... Apple should concentrate on tightening security and leave us developers alone...

And again. Epic’s case is something totally different. I agree with Apple on that one. But one thing is to not let people unlock features for the app outside the app avoiding IAP and another very different is not to let people advertise their own content on their apps. Can’t I put a link to my company’s site if I happen to sell anything else besides apps iOS apps?

 

[maka]

I've just posted a suggestion for the 3.1.1 guideline

Hello,

I recently had my free app (no IAP, just free) rejected and was asked to remove an ad I have that points to a page where you can click on a music service and listen to my music record. It was a way for people that like the app to show support if they want to. The ad works the same as any other ad I've seen in any other app, but the difference is that it is my own ad.

I was asked to remove the ad citing 3.1.1 and suggested that I should just use IAP. But that's not relevant because the app is free, there's nothing to unlock so no IAP is actually possible.

So, my gripe with this is that basically I was told I can't put a link on my app that points to anything that could be an outside purchase, which is exactly what ads are for, which 3.1.1. doesn't even mention.

I understand the spirit of 3.1.1. It's supposed to make sure people don't use purchase mechanisms outside of the App Store to unlock any content in an app. I understand the case of Epic Games, for example. And I've always understood that 3.1.1 serves that purpose.

What I don't understand is how it is being used to stop small developers from promoting their other stuff which is unrelated the app.

For example, can't I put a link to my website if on my website I also sell anything that is not from Apple?

Why the discrimination? I can get money to show ads on my app but I cannot "pay myself" to show my own ad? And if so, how can you be sure which is which?

If this is the case then the 3.1.1 guideline is not clear at all because it only talks about buying unlocks for content in the app for which we've got to use IAP and it should be made more clear

Thanks for your attention.